Reckoning with Socialism and Immigration Policy: Abolishing the American concept of citizenry

Tessa Stapp, Staff Writer

“If you think socialism and open borders are compatible, then you aren’t thinking critically, you’re just regurgitating what you learned on MSNBC.”

While that statement is an interesting thought exercise,the claim works only a few inches below surface level. However, policy is not made and life isn’t changed by uprooting liberating ideas and claiming they are in opposition to one another. To understand if these two causes are truly incompatible, there must be an entire excavation of the argument.

These two ideas hold immense power interlocked with beautiful opportunities- it just takes forward dreaming that disempowers capitalism for them to survive in America. The truth is, socialism and open borders are exact compliments, requiring a different framework of policy building and different conceptions of citizenship.

The featured quote came from my Political Science professor in response to students probing him on modern political conundrums. His argument is rooted in political theory that dates back to the 16th century. Hobbes argues that man is inherently evil and therefore needed a sovereign monarchy to instill purpose in the masses. This is the crux of Social Contract theory, in which citizenship carries both rights and duties. Claiming that socialism and open borders are in competition with each other is a view that has grown out of seeing property ownership and improvement as both a right and duty. 

Alexis de Tocqueville admired America for it’s political strives towards equality and sense of individualism. However, the property based access to rights that Tocqueville warned the American people of in the early 1800s when he wrote Democracy in America, is now coming to fruition. It was a four piece volume of a cautionary tale against property rights becoming the basis for privilege in society, foreshadowing the modern effects of letting wealth decide who is worthy of full rights. This is seen in the ways that wealth can impact the likelihood of imprisonment as proven by the Sentencing Project. The disproportionate ways in which wealth and criminality interact leads to a higher proportion of low income individuals being stripped of their right to vote for federal offenses. A compelling example of the fear Tocqueville held of a stratified American society due to wealth.

Now, social hierarchies sit comfortably within the American identity and neoliberalism ensures the maintenance of capitalism as the deciding force of who survives in America.

For socialism and open borders to co-exist, the United States must actively shift citizenship rights from being rooted in property to being rooted in community.

In this forward dream, open borders are enacted, and socialist benefits are given to those through community based programs. To qualify for these programs one must be an active member of the local community through whichever way they can give their time or money. The idea of allowing one to “buy” their way out of community work would facilitate the redistribution of wealth. If one wishes to not work to their ability, they can pay a higher percentage of taxes to account for the extra labour society provides on their behalf. Those funds would be used to maintain social welfare programs and support working families.

Socialism in opposition to open borders relies on a strong definition of citizenship as the lynchpin for their incompatibility. It fails to realize that this definition is incredibly subjective. Socialism can still rely on strong ties to community, while allowing for people to move with ease across borders. 

Citizens are members of the political community and have entered into a relationship between themselves and the state, as defined by British political theorist, Andrew Heywood. This idea further complicates T.H. Marshall's idea outlined in Citizenship and the Social Class in 1941. He claimed that membership in society is one constituted of civil rights, political rights, and social rights. However, he also argued that the State has a social responsibility to its citizens. That social responsibility is attached to each pillar of citizenship: civil rights as equal protection for all community members, political rights represented by voting, and social rights instituted as state funded welfare programs. 

Marxism reckons with these conceptions, while advocating for the worker to dismantle the capitalist state and take control of the apparatus. To modernize this claim, it starts with electing local officials, creating more sanctuary cities, and relaxing immigration policy. Capitalism is a system which delegitimizes other forms of organization through claims that they lead to anarchy. This claim is intimately linked to the need for community members to police themselves and each other to keep the mechanisms working.

Abolishing the worker policing state is linked with the abolition of police, for profit prison systems, and borders. These ideas are interlinked in the discussion of life affirming politics through ending oppressive colonial regimes. The state was conceived to enforce regulations upon non-community members and create a community under a single governing body. Now that this framework exists, society has a right to choose how the state acts. The state is not the limitation of the abilities for coexistence; the people allow these rules to govern themselves. In a democracy, citizens are those who have the power of self government but have delegated that authority to their representatives; in this way, we have also delegated responsibility to the state apparatus itself. 

Therefore, we can choose to advocate for a decentralizing of state power to ensure more funds go towards supporting communities directly. Through the decentralization of state powers and advocating for larger changes in the federal government, we can make space for reinterpretations of the legal framework surrounding citizenry.

Who would fund these programs if citizenship is freely attainable? Citizens would pay taxes to their local governing structure and a portion of that would go to the Federal government for essential duties. The payment of taxes is linked to the same systems as before, however, there is no money paid towards salaries for government officials. Governmental office would be a civil duty, everyone would volunteer to take part in doing whatever they do best to support local or national governmental structures, and that would ensure there are more funds to distribute to the peoples in need. 

To receive benefits, taxes or community service would have to be provided. Thus, citizenry is not forcing this idea of becoming an American, but becoming a productive member of society. There would be federally subsidized housing units for those that wish to work less and not own property. Individuals could choose to not work at all- but not paying taxes would require higher investment in the governing structure. 

Those that choose to be industrious and earn above that needed to survive comfortably in society would pay higher taxes, to ensure all are giving according to their ability. 

Those that wish to move freely would be better suited to involvement in the federal government or telecommuting to work. This ensures there is still full investment in community building. 

Open borders also means individuals are free to choose exit as well. Community obligations would ask that those leaving important positions notify other members to ensure either democratic elections or a volunteer position could be created and the best individual for the job would be found.

Open borders also means an abolition of the capitalist way of thinking that has plagued american idealism since the land was stolen from native peoples. Open borders and open citizenry would allow for land to be more easily given back to those that have been stewards of it since before colonization. Through rooting citizenship in community building, there opens up a pathway to indigenous land sovereignty and usufruct land ownership. 

This forward dream is an example of how we can imagine a move towards a socialist democracy with open citizenry. The call to open borders and socialism are not inherently opposed to each other if you are willing to dream of a world where our main connection to community and citizenry is not rooted in capitalism.